yes, I think for patches actually made from svn, svn patch may be better?
to me, the key advantage with 'standard patch --merge' is that it works for
git patches (which may not have svn revision information) or patches you
make yourself with 'diff', as well as svn patches: its universal.
On Tue,
: Personally, never tried svn patch.
Yeah ... i think it has some explicit assumptions about the patch file
being generated by "svn diff" so it can use some of the header bits to
know when files mentioned in a patch should be "svn rm", "svn mv", or "svn
add"
In particular, if you note that fi
Personally, never tried svn patch.
if you have a recent version of gnu patch (i think 2.7+ ? you might have to
install from source for some macs, i did), then i tend to just do this:
# for git patches (maybe out of date)
patch -p1 --merge < patch.txt
# for svn patches (maybe out of date
patch -p0
So, I did:
wget https://github.com/apache/lucene-solr/pull/18.diff
and then:
svn patch --dry-run --strip 1 18.diff
and some of the pathnames have 2 components stripped -- but not all.
Has anyone got another approach? I hesitate to use git-svn, but I'll
follow someone else's lead.
svn patch -
